Thread Tools

All the talk about the Borges case has got me thinking about the rise of the multimedia sports guy. You know the guy who writes in the paper, goes on the TV and radio talk shows, plies the internet. Borges, Felger, Callahan, etc, etc, etc.

It USED to be that information was given to us in 2 forms. The reporter, who told us who, what, where, when, and how; and then there was the editorialist/columnist who told us the WHY or the story behind the story, or his/her opinion of events. Those lines have been crossed over and over again. All too often now its the REPORTERS who can't resist the temptation to tell WHY....continually.

In this respect I fear for Mike Reis. Right now he is the best out there at doing us, the fans, a service and telling us who, what, where, when, and how about the Patriots. NOW because Reiss is doing such a good job reporting on the Pats, he is starting to show up more and more on these OTHER media shows telling us his OPINION on the WHY of the things he reports on.... AND quite frankly, I'm not interested in what Reis might think about WHY something happened. MY opinion is just as good as his. Actually, now that I think about it, probably better since I happen to know the game better than he does, so once he has provided me with the facts, I can make MY OWN opinions, thank you.

Mike Felger USED to be a decent reporter. He was a guy who could get a story and find out useful info for fans. NOW that its become "all about Felger", his contacts within the Pats lockerroom have dried up and his is better now at being a talking head than a sport journalist. In other words he's just a nother guy with an opinion, no better or worse than our own. In other words he's USELESS to me as an information source. In fact he oculd be Ron Borges II in the making. I would hate to see Reiss fall into that trap.

Sometime in the last 2 decades the news has become "infotainment" . And during that time the line between reporting and editorializing have been blurred to the point of non-existence. It used to be that a Reporter told us "the facts"...ONLY. Then in a SEPARATE section of the paper or newscast the owner of the meda had the opportunity to give his opinion and tell us HIS opinion of WHY a particular event took place. Now, especially in the radio and TV, fact and opinion are one. AND as Pogo (a comic strip from MY generation ) used to say, "I have seen the enemy... and it is US."

IT IS WE who have allowed to some extent, the talking heads to essentually tell us what just occurred. The proliferation the talking head, like Limbaugh, OReilly, etc of the world are just examples (and this isn't about left or right BTW) of people WANTING others to form their opinions of events FOR THEM.

In other words, after listening to a presidential debate, I DON'T want to hear from 2 spin doctors TELLING me what I just heard. After the candidates have spoken I just want them to say good night....and LET ME decide on the impact of what was said. Instead too many of us (including myself sometimes) wait for the papers or the spin doctors to tell US what happened. In other words because of laziness, we have abrogated our responsibilities as citizens.

Sorry about the last 2 paragraphs, probably the wrong forum for this. But then again this is AN EDITORIAL, so its JMHO

Anyone who doubts that showbiz has overtaken job responsibilities in today's society need look no further than to the "pillar of society" Florida Judge a few weeks ago during the Anna Nicole Smith burial trial.

A few colleagues and I were talking about this with reporters recently. We came to the conclusion that the reason this is happening is because of human behavior. Resentment is one of the most powerful human emotions, and these talking heads are very good at stirring up people's resentment. Resentment makes people feel alive during their ordinary drab days (I'm not excluding myself, sometimes I find work to be a real bore). In the end, resnetment = ratings = $$$. That's why this is happening. They've hit upon a magic formula. The more resentful you make your listener, the more they'll tune in. It's like a drug. They need their angry fix.

Don't ask me why I listen to colin Cowherd, the guy drives me nutz. I can't stand him, but it's either that or fish around the backseat for a CD. This morning I found Van Halen II, and boy did that suck!!!

A few colleagues and I were talking about this with reporters recently. We came to the conclusion that the reason this is happening is because of human behavior. Resentment is one of the most powerful human emotions, and these talking heads are very good at stirring up people's resentment. Resentment makes people feel alive during their ordinary drab days (I'm not excluding myself, sometimes I find work to be a real bore). In the end, resnetment = ratings = $$$. That's why this is happening. They've hit upon a magic formula. The more resentful you make your listener, the more they'll tune in. It's like a drug. They need their angry fix.

Don't ask me why I listen to colin Cowherd, the guy drives me nutz. I can't stand him, but it's either that or fish around the backseat for a CD. This morning I found Van Halen II, and boy did that suck!!!

Click to expand...

I know what you're saying, but I think this reaches a threshold of negativity where people finally get fed up and tune out the "resentment mongers," a la Borges. I don't listen to or watch Andy Gresh and Gary Tanguay much anymore either, because that style of in-your-face provocation just gets wearisome after a while. I miss the "why" reporting of people like Will McDonough, who carefully plied sources and got inside info that was meaningful beyond mere conjecture.

May have inadvertantly left out Tom Curran, who was IMO the best Pats beat writer around.. he is now on the national scene, but with a real Pats flair.. he will only become better with a national perspective, and continue to provide insight to us fans. Really like him on the Sunday AM WEEI sports show, his insight is invaluable.

It USED to be that information was given to us in 2 forms. The reporter, who told us who, what, where, when, and how; and then there was the editorialist/columnist who told us the WHY or the story behind the story, or his/her opinion of events. Those lines have been crossed over and over again. All too often now its the REPORTERS who can't resist the temptation to tell WHY....continually.

Click to expand...

This is true... and it used to be that you literally got 3 minutes of sports highlights per night on your evening news telecast and a sports section in the newspaper and that was it. It used to be that when the 4:00 Sunday football game on TV ended, if there was another game being played that wasn't over yet, you couldn't find out who won that other game or the final score until the next day's newspaper. The media has changed many facets of our society, and sports is certainly among them.

Actually, now that I think about it, probably better since I happen to know the game better than he does, so once he has provided me with the facts, I can make MY OWN opinions, thank you.

Click to expand...

You sure about that? Other than this little blurb, I agree with your post. You see this on ESPN all the time. They no longer just tell you the facts , they have to scream into the camera telling you WHY this WHY that. I haven't watched ESPN since the AFCCG and it's not only because of the Colts love-in, I'm tired of their act.

May have inadvertantly left out Tom Curran, who was IMO the best Pats beat writer around.. he is now on the national scene, but with a real Pats flair.. he will only become better with a national perspective, and continue to provide insight to us fans. Really like him on the Sunday AM WEEI sports show, his insight is invaluable.

Click to expand...

Perfect example that it's the messenger and not the medium. I do not fear for Reiss as I do not fear for Curran.

You sure about that? Other than this little blurb, I agree with your post. You see this on ESPN all the time. They no longer just tell you the facts , they have to scream into the camera telling you WHY this WHY that. I haven't watched ESPN since the AFCCG and it's not only because of the Colts love-in, I'm tired of their act.

Click to expand...

You are right, I haven't watched much ESPN either since the game. When you get football talk at all, its seems to be all about the Colts. I think they might be getting more love with their ONE Superbowl win, than we did with THREE. AND now that I get the NFL channel, there is almost no need to watch those shameless self promoters.

BTW... and yes, given my experience and background, I positively DO know more football than any of the local media we generally watch. I might even know more than a few of the posters here. Not many, just a couple of the young ones. Now because I don't have much access to the team and 'contacts', I probably don't know as much as they do about the day to day operation of the team, but about the game itself....most definitely.

The only guys I respect and listen to around here are Tim Fox, who I know personally. Steve Nelson, who not only played the game, but coached it (which is really eye opening for the former player BTW). And Nationally I really like Ron Jaworski. There ARE people like DIck Vermiel and Mike Ditka, who really know and understand about the game and what is going on around the league, but unfortunately Ditka is more interested in developing his "cult of personality" than passing on information.

I've always understood the distinction between the reporter and the columnist or analyst. I think the Boston media and perhaps as a result their audience has lost sight of that distinction (except as a media cover when they are facing criticism).

Why is a columnist even writing a notes column, why are baseball or basketball or hockey columnists at times not only writing extensively about the football team but even subbing for beat reporters. The Herald even created a new title for Felger - Beat Columnist...when they brought in a baseball reporter who couldn't keep his vitriolic opinions to himself while reporting on the local baseball team to replace him on the football beat.

At the end of the day it's all about the Benjamines for sports reporters (I refuse to call them journalists) today. The print market is drying up and who can raise a family on what newspapers pay, particularly when you're covering guys making millions per. I guarantee you Felger is making quadruple what he made at the Herald just a few years ago just for the radio gig, and probably at least as much from his FSNE gigs. And he has managed to retain his undeserved insider media status with gigs like Sports Final. He saw that potential when he went to work for Ordway five years ago. He also saw that while it was nice to be respected and informed, that didn't get you more air time hours or higher paying gigs. So he made a decision he now tries to couch as being objective rather than a butt kisser. He blew a relationship with BB and insider status with the team because he could get further career wise taking rational or even irrational shots at them. To this day I think when Holley landed the dream access slot by writing Patriots Reign, and parlayed that into an ESPN gig and eventually radio co-host on WEEI, while Felgers tome on the Patriots pre BB history languished on shelves as he guested on WEEI, that just sealed it for Mike.

I think it's unfortunate that objective and critical seem to be confused in so many media minds these days. None of these guys (Felger, Borges, Curran, Ordway, Callahan, Gresh - (he might not even have a job) would be where they are today had this organization under BB not won half of the superbowls played in the last 6 years. And while Will McDonough may have laudably worked harder to develop his access and information than these guys are able or willing to, the one thing they continue to try and emulate was Will's most annoying trait - believing he knew more than the professionals about how to run their teams and leagues and could influence them.

In Will's heyday day it wasn't quite as much of a stretch to sell the savvy reporter as more genius than ownership and management as it is today. Most of these clowns don't even know enough about running a successful sports franchise in this complex an era to remotely do their jobs competently whether reporting or opining or commenting on it professionally. Might they be smarter than Matt Millen? It's possible because Millen's supposed genius was a media creation to begin with. Belichick's and Pioli's and Kraft's isn't. And they have the three Lombardi's to prove it.